WHAT ARE LEADERSHIP STYLES?

Leadership styles are reflected in behaviors and attitudes, but these in turn are the outcome of complex interactions between the way we think and feel. looks at what this means by:

» explaining how these interactions work;

» providing a definition of leadership style; and

» looking at how far we can adapt our styles, without acting out of character.

‘‘Effective leadership is the only competitive advantage that will endure. That’s because leadership has two sides – what a person is (character) and what a person does (competence).’’

Stephen Covey, author of The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People

At one level, the concept of ‘‘leadership style’’ is simple to define: it is the style that a leader adopts in their dealings with those who follow them. Clearly, underlying this is an assumption that there is a ‘‘right’’ and a ‘‘wrong’’ style.

According to the management literature, the appropriate style will depend on a wide variety of criteria, including the relationship between the parties involved, the nature of what needs to be done, and the match or mismatch between the difficulty of the task and the competencies available. But this very simplicity masks a much more complex subject.

One of the first questions to ask is what we mean by ‘‘style?’’ Generally, in this type of context, style is taken to mean a way of behaving. But behavior shows itself in many different forms. It can be mannerisms such as the use of voice and the tone and volume employed, or in body language and physical demeanor. It can be what we say – words that can vary across the spectrum from aggressive to placatory. It can be in the form of conduct, which may express calmness or agitation.

At a deeper level, behavior can be the loyalty we show, the trust we place, the commitments we make, the honesty and truthfulness with which we deal with others. Taken together, different behaviors are read by others as the way we are acting toward them.

But that is to reach just the outer layer of the complexities – because the way we behave is not just defined by the situation. Behavior is determined by many different things, things that psychologists and psychoanalysts spend their lifetimes seeking to understand. Behavior is an outcome of the interplay between our cognitive side, the way we think and reason, and our emotional side, the way we feel. And our cognitive and emotional responses are themselves a mix of nature (instinct) and nurture (experience). The way we behave is a powerful reflection of our personality and character, the product of the often unconscious processes that are at work within us.

A RECENT DEFINITION

One of the most recent leadership experts to try to define what is meant by leadership styles is Manfred Kets de Vries, a psychoanalyst and professor at INSEAD business school in France. In his 2001 book, The Leadership Mystique,1 he points out that leadership is a property, ‘‘a set of characteristics – behavior pattern and personality attributes – that makes certain people more effective at attaining a set goal.’’ But it is also a process, ‘‘an effort by a leader, drawing on various bases of power

(an activity with its own skill set), to influence members of a group to direct their activities toward a common goal.’’

Because leadership cannot take place without followers and always has situational factors that have to be taken into account, Kets de Vries defines leadership style as the point of interaction between three things:

» the leader’s character type – their values, attitudes, and beliefs, their position and experience;

» the followers’ character types – their values, attitudes, and beliefs, their cohesiveness as a group; and

» the situation – the nature of the task, the life-stage of the organization, its structure and culture, its industry, and the wider socio-economic and political environment.

But, as Kets de Vries explains: ‘‘An individual’s leadership style – a synthesis of the various roles that he or she chooses to adopt is a complex outcome of the interplay of that person’s inner theater . . . and the competencies that the person develops over the course of their lifespan.’’ An individual’s ‘‘inner theater’’ is made up of their motivational needs, their character traits, and their temperament. These character traits find expression in certain behavioral patterns that can be called personal, cognitive, and social competencies. In Kets de Vries’ view, ‘‘in any given situation, a certain set of competencies contributes to effective leadership. The challenge for leaders (or potential leaders) is to develop a repertoire of competencies that covers most contingencies.’’

ADAPTABILITY

This latter point is critical, because inherent in the concept of ‘‘leadership styles’’ is the assumption that an individual can change his or her style at will. Of course, most people are readily capable of changing their outward behavior to fit the circumstances – looking sad, acting happy, or putting on a grim face, as appropriate. To survive in an adult world, and to make headway in most organizations, people learn to become good actors – sometimes acting out of character – to smooth the path where necessary. Human beings, by and large, are also astonishingly adaptable – able to change their normal mode of behavior for quite extended periods where necessary, for example when thrust into an unexpected situation like an emergency.

But the degree to whichwe can subvert or distort our natural feelings and our instinctive behavior patterns is necessarily limited. Where this does happen for any extended period, we are likely to develop what Kets de Vries describes as a ‘‘false self.’’ In his leadership seminars for top executives he finds it not at all unusual to come across people who are seriously out of touch with the way they feel. ‘‘Their many years of conformity on the corporate path have blurred the distinction between their own feelings and the feelings that are expected of them.’’ They become ‘‘a caricature of the ‘good executive’’’ – a false self. People in this position are unlikely to be able to provide effective leadership.

INTEGRITY

One of the central tenets of effective leadership, repeatedly expressed by most experts on the subject, is the need to act with integrity. It is the key to winning trust and commitment. But integrity is more than just acting honestly and speaking truthfully; it is also being honest about oneself. Hence another principle of good leadership, the need to know and be yourself.

So, you might ask, is the whole concept of ‘‘leadership styles’’ built on a false premise? Even if they can, should people change styles? The answer to both questions is that it is a matter of degree. If one is talking about adapting a chosen style to fit a new and specific set of different circumstances, then this may be utterly appropriate – the most open and democratic leader must be able to switch to issuing highly prescriptive orders in a crisis. On a day-to-day basis, effective leaders shift their style to match the micro-situation, though there needs to remain an underlying consistency if morale and motivation are to be maintained.

But if one is talking about a fundamental change of style that will require out-of-character behavioral changes over the long term, then the answer should be no. Howwe lead is a reflection of our character, our personality, and our experience. As a result, the range of styles we can properly adopt is inevitably limited. To put oneself in the highly stressful role of leader without acknowledging this reality is to court disaster. Square pegs in round holes don’t fit and often get damaged when anyone tries to make them fit.

 PERSONALITY TYPES

So, if there is a limited degree to which any of us can adjust our style without becoming untrue to ourselves, how can we recognize our natural style?

There are many psychometric tests now in use that seek to define the type of person we are. One of the best known is the Myers – Briggs personality type test that also helps to determine our natural ‘‘comfort’’ zones in terms of behavior. More than two million people in the US alone answer its battery of questions each year to elicit their positioning along four different dimensions. At their most simplistic these are: extrovert or introvert; a liking for hard fact and detail or a preference for intuition; a tendency to use head (impersonal) or heart (personal); and quick decision-taking or a desire for a lot of information first. Each of the 16 types that the test produces has its own personality profile which should provide some indication of our preferred leadership styles

PREFERRED ROLES

Other tools help to identify how we are likely to behave, contribute, and interrelate with others in a team environment. Given that leadership nowadays tends to take place in such a context – either at local or top team levels – these can provide important insights. One such is the Belbin  Team Roles Indicator, which identifies those who are action-oriented (the Shaper, Implementer, and Completer- Finisher); those who are people-oriented (the Co-ordinator, Team worker, and Resource Investigator), and those who take cerebral roles (the Plant, Monitor Evaluator, and Specialist).

LEADERSHIP TYPES

Over the years, lots of management thinkers have identified different leadership types (and their typical styles). One of the most recent and controversial – and therefore interesting – typologies is that produced by Patricia Pitcher, Professor of Leadership at Canada’s longest-established business school, ´Ecole des Hautes ´Etudes Commerciales, in Montreal.

As a result of more than eight years of investigation, she argues that there are essentially three types of leader: the ‘‘artist,’’ the ‘‘craftsman,’’ and the ‘‘technocrat,’’ and each has three subsets.

» The artist is emotional, imaginative, daring, exciting, intuitive, creative, unpredictable, visionary, and entrepreneurial. Like an artist, such leaders challenge our views of the world and conjure up a picture of something new, different, better.

» The craftsman is well-balanced, realistic, reasonable, steady, responsible, predictable, helpful, honest, and trustworthy. The craftsman learns from experience and enables others to do so by accepting that innovation will bring mistakes.

» The technocrat is cerebral, hard-headed, determined, intense, detail oriented, uncompromising, and no-nonsense in approach. The technocrat intellectualizes and concentrates on finding the facts and the right way of doing things.

Pitcher suggests that technocrats currently run around 80% of companies and that this is why there is a ‘‘leadership crisis’’ in many of them. Instead, she believes that the inspiring and visionary risk-taker (the artist) has the creativity and intuitive sense of the future that leaders need today.

But perhaps we should let Ken Blanchard, author of the bestseller The One-Minute Manager and himself a leadership expert, have the last word. In terms of style, he thinks that the leader of the future will ‘‘excel as a cheerleader, supporter, and encourager rather than as a judge, a critic, or evaluator.’’2

KEY LEARNING POINTS

» Style is usually seen as the way we behave and behavior reveals itself in many ways.

» Behavior results from an interplay between what we think and how we feel, and is a reflection of character and personality.

» An effective leadership style must reflect the leader’s character type, the followers’ characteristics, and the situation.

» Leaders must adapt their style, but should not distort their personality so much that they create a ‘‘false self.’’

» Followers look for integrity, and adopting out-of-character behaviors is easily seen through.

» There are many tools to help people understand their preferred styles and roles.

 NOTES

1 Manfred Kets de Vries, The Leadership Mystique, Financial Times Prentice Hall, 2001.

2 Ken Blanchard, ‘‘Turning the Organizational Pyramid Upside Down,’’ in The Leader of the Future, Jossey-Bass, 1996.